|Bid||85.51 x 4000|
|Ask||0.00 x 1800|
|Day's Range||85.91 - 87.46|
|52 Week Range||60.42 - 99.72|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.52|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||29.47|
|Earnings Date||Jan. 28, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.64 (1.94%)|
|1y Target Est||94.12|
2019 has been a big year for fast-food chicken, with the "chicken wars" turning from mild to spicy. Will you be trying any of the fried chicken sandwich options?
How far off is Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX) from its intrinsic value? Using the most recent financial data...
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: ExxonMobil, Starbucks, Diageo, Fidelity National Information Services and Colgate-Palmolive
(Bloomberg) -- SoftBank Group Corp.’s massive investment in WeWork triggered a multi-billion-dollar writedown and a rare apology from founder Masayoshi Son. But one analyst argues the deal is likely to work in the end and SoftBank will have the “last laugh.”Chris Lane of Sanford C. Bernstein says WeWork can have a bright future if SoftBank overhauls the business plan and more carefully focuses on the evolution of the corporate office market. He likens WeWork’s business model to Starbucks’s, where branding, consistency and global scale give it an advantage over the competition.Lane argues WeWork can achieve profitability if it pulls back on extraneous areas and calms a frenetic pace of expansion to focus on filling up existing space. That will allow it to grab an estimated 8% of an emergent market for pre-fitted offices for corporate clients, almost like a white-label tech gadget or home appliance.“We think investors should think of the basic business as being similar to Starbucks,” Lane wrote in a 21-page research report. “While profitable, the scale of profits that can be generated from a single site is small. Starbucks as a corporation only makes sense if you plan to open thousands of outlets.”It’s a contrarian take on a WeWork deal that has been widely viewed as a fiasco. After SoftBank invested in the co-working startup, its planned initial public offering fell apart as investors balked at its enormous losses and conflicted governance. Son conceded “there was a problem with my own judgment” as he announced the writedown last month. SoftBank has put about $14 billion into a startup that’s now valued at less than $8 billion.The Japanese company’s shares are down about 30% from their peak in April. They were little changed on Friday.After discussions with management, Lane explains they see an opportunity for WeWork to move beyond the niche of providing space for entrepreneurs to offering flexible real estate for a broad range of companies. He calls this “managed space as a service” and compares it to “software as a service,” which is the way many companies now buy from Microsoft Corp. and Salesforce.com Inc. WeWork, Lane says, sees the potential to make $500 per month on memberships as “an on-going annuity,” far more than software generates.SoftBank named Marcelo Claure, the former chief executive at Sprint Corp., executive chairman of WeWork and put him in charge of the turnaround effort. Under his leadership, Lane says the company will be able to focus on profitability by stopping any incremental expansion, filling its existing space and slashing overhead by getting rid of expansion staff and non-core businesses. WeWork’s ability to gather data about office-use and optimize layouts -- while not entirely substantiated -- could prove disruptive to the industry, he added.He estimates that WeWork’s revenue will rise from $720 million a quarter to about $1.5 billion if it can push occupancy to 90% on its current portfolio. Once profitable, WeWork will once again try to go public, perhaps in 2023, and then raise additional capital to resume expansion, albeit more slowly than before.With a discounted cash flow model, Lane projects WeWork would have an enterprise value of $28.8 billion in 2025. That would make SoftBank’s 80% stake worth about $19.1 billion, roughly 40% more than the estimated $13.8 billion the company and its Vision Fund have invested.“We believe WeWork’s valuation is justified if you believe in the long-term, ‘office space’ will be a managed service outsourced to professionals – and that WeWork will be the leading global player,” Lane wrote. “Despite the huge embarrassment WeWork has been for SoftBank this year, we suspect SoftBank will have the last laugh when they bring the company back to market in a few years – bigger and profitable.”(Updates with shares in the sixth paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Pavel Alpeyev in Tokyo at email@example.com;Takahiko Hyuga in Tokyo at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Edwin Chan at email@example.com, Peter ElstromFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Starbucks Corp., for the first time, is disclosing how much less women at the coffee chain earn than men in the U.S.: zero dollars. That’s in contrast to the nation’s workforce overall, in which women make on average 19% less than men. Starbucks also says it has no racial pay gap.Starbucks joins Citigroup Inc. in reporting figures for median pay, a rarity among U.S. companies, which are not required to release diversity data publicly. The U.K. has required organizations to report such data for workers since 2018. There, women at Starbucks make 5% less than men. Globally, its female employees make 98.3% of what men do.“Starbucks has been focused on diversity and equity for a long time, and you can see it in their numbers,” said Natasha Lamb, managing partner at Arjuna Capital, which pressures companies to reveal pay data for greater gender equality. “But having little to no adjusted or unadjusted gender pay gaps really sets them apart.”Starbucks’ parity shows not only that women get “equal pay for equal work” but also that they have achieved as many high-paying roles as men.“Pay equity has long been a priority at Starbucks,” said Bailey Adkins, a spokesperson for the chain. “We’ve done serious work to ensure women and men are compensated fairly.”Pressured by Arjuna, some of the biggest banks and tech companies have disclosed the pay gap between men and women doing the same work—often referred to as pay equity. Companies have resisted sharing their median pay gaps, which could be embarrassing. After Citigroup reported that women at the bank earn 29% less than men, its peers chose not to follow. In the U.S., the bank also pays people of color 7% less than their white co-workers.On Wednesday, Microsoft Corp.’s shareholders voted down a measure calling for median pay disclosure. Arjuna says it will file resolutions at more than a dozen technology, financial and retail companies for the 2020 proxy season. It withdrew its proposal from Starbucks.\--With assistance from Leslie Patton.To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Green in Southfield, Michigan at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Rebecca Greenfield at email@example.com, Philip GrayFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- When Starbucks Corp. took its American playbook to China two decades ago, that included a controversial chapter: grow extra fast and cannibalize your own stores’ sales.After snagging enviable 5% growth in the key country in the latest quarter, the coffee giant warned again Tuesday that its China comparable sales could rise as little as 1% this fiscal year. The 1% to 3% growth expected in China would be slower than the 3% to 4% expansion expected in the U.S., despite saturation at home.“We have picked up the pace of new unit development, and with that comes cannibalization,” Chief Financial Officer Patrick Grismer said during an investor conference hosted by Morgan Stanley.Intentional Strategy“We’re effectively doing it to ourselves, we’re doing it intentionally in the interest of growing total transactions and total sales,” he said, while adding that rising competition and slowing economic growth are also having an impact.The company is opening a location in China about every 15 hours, with an ultimate goal of adding about 600 new cafes this year to its current count of 4,125.Starbucks over the past several years followed a similar pattern in its home market by opening too many stores too quickly. Sales couldn’t keep up with the openings, and the chain closed about 150 stores in densely penetrated U.S. areas in its last fiscal year.With slower growth in the U.S. -- especially urban areas -- Starbucks has started opening smaller pick-up only locations. It’s also focused more on rural and suburban real estate with drive-thrus, especially across the Sun Belt region. Performance in the U.S. has shown signs of rebounding.Starbucks, which has identified the U.S. and China as its key areas of focus, has called out slower growth in China over the past 18 months and even reported a rare negative comparable sales quarter there in 2018. To combat rising competition from brands like Luckin Coffee Inc., Starbucks has been expanding delivery and increasing its advertising.\--With assistance from Cristin Flanagan.To contact the reporters on this story: Leslie Patton in Chicago at firstname.lastname@example.org;Jonathan Roeder in Chicago at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Anne Riley Moffat at firstname.lastname@example.org, Sally BakewellFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Their origins couldn't be more different -- one in the liberal Pacific Northwest, the other in the Bible Belt. And yet despite existing in a consumer brand landscape increasingly caught in the same polarizing trends seen in our politics, Starbucks Corp. and Chick-fil-A Inc. are converging on the exact same customer base, shaping what middle America means in the 21st century.Succeeding as a consumer brand in the 2010s is impressive in its own right; doing it while pivoting from a distinct cultural base to something more universal is even more challenging when considering larger trends in American business. We've seen media networks sort into outlets that cater to either liberals or conservatives. Pro sports leagues have dealt with the same issues, with the National Basketball Association and Nascar moving in opposite directions. Even a clothing staple as innocuous as blue jeans has seen San Francisco-based Levi's cater more to liberals while Wrangler has trended toward conservatives.Starbucks and Chick-fil-A are different. The No. 2 and No. 3 U.S. restaurant chains have dealt with their share of cultural controversies during the past several years. They have done it by slowly but steadily pivoting away from their regional origins.For Starbucks, the challenge was expanding from its roots in Seattle with an urban, liberal, largely white brand identity to something more universal. The company didn't come to Manhattan until 1994, 23 years after its founding. During that time it moved into cities in the rest of the U.S., then urban areas overseas. With the cities conquered, suburbs were next, which meant drive-through windows for car-centric middle America and adding food and cold beverages to cater to a wider range of tastes and preferences.Being a universal brand requires a universal culture. So, for example, in 2015, Starbucks removed all graphic designs associated with Christmas from its takeout cups, replacing them with plain red holiday cups, leading to brief and now-forgotten backlash. In 2018, after store employees in Philadelphia complained to police, two black men who were waiting to for a business associate were arrested when they asked to use the bathroom. The episode led the company to close all of its stores for a day to conduct diversity training. For Chick-fil-A, the challenge has been to evolve from a company whose culture is heavily influenced by the religious ethos of its founder, a devout Southern Baptist. As with Starbucks, geographic expansion came before cultural change. As recently as 2013, Chick-fil-A had more locations in Alabama than it had on the entire West Coast, and it had little presence in the Northeast. Liberal consumers and those outside of the South held negative view of the company because of its opposition to same-sex marriage, with company president Dan Cathy defending his position in 2012. That led to boycotts, which eventually ended when the company reversed its stance a couple months later.Expansion outside of its core geographic market continued, with Chick-fil-A's first New York store opening in 2015. While sales growth has remained robust, the company couldn't shake its image as a foe of LGBTQ rights. It's in that spirit -- perhaps after the planned closure of its first store in the U.K. amid gay-rights protests -- that the company earlier this month said it would change its philanthropic policies to placate the demands of activists.The company has moved in a cosmopolitan direction in other ways. It expanded its menu to include options like cold-brew coffee and bowls featuring kale and quinoa. Its marketing has also shifted to emphasize diversity and a recent television ad featured a voiceover of a man with a Hindi accent. Although it still has work to do to conquer North America, it's clear that Chick-fil-A has ambitions abroad, and doesn't want cultural obstacles to get in the way.If corporations used to define middle American consumers in the past as white Christian families in the Midwest, Starbucks and Chick-fil-A seem to suggest an updated version is taking form that defines the market with broader demographic sweep and that includes consumers in cities, suburbs and exurbs across the nation. People of all backgrounds are welcome. Religion is de-emphasized. In our polarized environment, there may not be many institutions that most or all Americans can embrace, but it look as if coffee and chicken sandwiches may turn out to be the exception. To contact the author of this story: Conor Sen at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Conor Sen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a portfolio manager for New River Investments in Atlanta and has been a contributor to the Atlantic and Business Insider.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The travel website recently compiled the most expensive and affordable airports in all 50 states, and ranked Newark Liberty International Airport at the top of the pricey list.
(Bloomberg) -- Oracle Corp. should increase the racial diversity of its board, a group of U.S. lawmakers said, putting a spotlight on the company’s hiring and management practices.“The fact that African Americans make up 13% and Asian Americans make up 5.6% of the U.S. population but 0% of Oracle’s board and leadership team is inexcusable,” the lawmakers said in a Nov. 22 letter from the House Tech Accountability Caucus and Tri-Caucus, which includes the Black, Hispanic and Asian Pacific American caucuses.It’s the latest call for the second-largest software maker and billionaire Chairman Larry Ellison to improve diversity and inclusion. Former employees and the U.S. government have sued the Redwood City, California-based company, alleging it systematically underpaid women and people of color, and many shareholders have supported repeated requests that the board examine if there’s a pay gap between male and female employees.It’s at least the second time this year that Oracle has attracted congressional scrutiny for its diversity practices. In January, the Congressional Black Caucus and House Tech Accountability Caucus wrote to the company expressing dismay about allegations of pay discrimination.This week’s letter was signed by Democrats Robin L. Kelly, Joaquin Castro, Karen Bass and Judy Chu, who chair the various House caucuses, as well as other lawmakers.Amazon, FacebookThe Tech Accountability Caucus previously criticized Amazon.com Inc. for its tepid record of appointing people of color to its board, and Facebook Inc. for allowing marketers to use ethnic affinity to target ads for housing, employment or credit.Amazon has since adopted a policy pledging to consider a diverse slate of candidates for open board seats and added Starbucks Corp. operating chief Rosalind Brewer and former PepsiCo Inc. Chief Executive Officer Indra Nooyi as directors. In 2016, Facebook updated its policy to disable ethnic targeting for certain ads.“We respectfully request a prompt response from Oracle Corporation regarding our diversity concerns,” the lawmakers wrote. They requested a briefing with the company to discuss the issue, but said it would also accept a written response within 14 days, or a phone call.Oracle didn’t respond to a request for comment.In a February response to the earlier congressional letter, the company said it wouldn’t “intentionally discriminate against women and people of color” and was committed to a diverse, nondiscriminatory work culture, according to the lawmakers.Short-ChangedOracle is also contending with a January lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Labor, which alleged the company short-changed female and minority workers some $400 million in wages.The allegations stem from a 2014 audit by a department unit that enforces equal pay and other non-discrimination matters for federal contractors. Records show that Oracle paid women and minority employees less than others and steered them into lower-level jobs, the department said in court papers. It also alleged that Oracle used H-1B visas to hire scores of Asians and paid them less than employees who were U.S. citizens.In 2017, three female engineers sued Oracle, alleging underpayment compared with male engineers doing the same tasks. An analysis conducted on behalf of the plaintiffs showed the company paid some women about $13,000 less per year on average versus male counterparts. They’re seeking to represent more than 4,000 similarly situated employees.Oracle has denied the allegations in both cases.For three straight years, shareholder Pax World Funds has filed proposals asking the company’s board to identify whether a gender pay gap exists and how to fix it. The proposals have been supported by several large investors, including funds held by BlackRock Inc. and State Street Corp., but failed to garner majority support. That’s largely because Ellison, who owns about a third of the stock, has opposed the measure.(Updates with shareholder proposal in third paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Nico Grant in San Francisco at email@example.com;Anders Melin in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at email@example.com, Andrew Pollack, Peter EichenbaumFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Starbucks Corporation today announced that Patrick Grismer, chief financial officer, will participate at the Morgan Stanley Global Consumer & Retail Conference in New York on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 8:00 a.m.
(Bloomberg) -- Nestle SA expects to get about a quarter of a billion dollars in extra revenue from Starbucks-branded products this year after it began selling items including Nespresso-compatible capsules under a partnership with the U.S. coffee giant.Starbucks-branded merchandise will add about 250 million Swiss francs ($252 million) to sales this year, a spokesman said Tuesday in response to questions. Last year, Nestle paid more than $7 billion for licenses to use the Starbucks brand for products sold in grocery stores.The move has given a boost to Nespresso, where growth has eased due to competition from cheap imitation pods. Nestle has been hesitant to offer its coffee brand’s capsules in supermarkets because it prefers to keep control over how they’re sold. However, the Swiss company has been using the Starbucks tie-up as an avenue into grocery aisles.The alliance could help Nespresso return to annual revenue growth exceeding 10%, Patrice Bula, chairman of the brand, said in February. As part of the agreement, the world’s largest food company took over a $2 billion business that made Starbucks products for grocery stores.Nestle plans to add 10 more markets next year for the products, including Argentina, Colombia and Panama, which would bring the total to 50. The company will introduce Starbucks-branded soluble coffee next year and expand sales of the broader range to offices and hotels. (Updates last paragraph to include detail on expanded sales. An earlier version of this story corrected details of product in last paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Corinne Gretler in Zurich at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Eric Pfanner at email@example.com, John LauermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Luckin Coffee's stock has been on fire of late. Yahoo Finance speaks with Luckin Coffee CFO Reinout Schakel about the company's plans.
Amid choppy retail real estate market, Federal Realty (FRT) is aimed at long-term value accretion through its remerchandising, redevelopment efforts and strategic acquisitions.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- For a company that is so good at so many things, Amazon is remarkably bad at politics.Exhibit A is the latest debacle in its hometown of Seattle, where the company’s push to seat a more politically moderate city council backfired. Campaign cash aimed at producing a less tax-happy council triggered the opposite result and turned a socialist headed for defeat into a martyr.Amazon has never been known for subtlety. The $1.45 million it spread around in political contributions to City Council candidates not only set a record, but also changed the trajectory of the election. Polls showed that voters who were poised to replace some leftist council members changed course. After Amazon’s donations became public, they elected five of seven candidates opposed by a business coalition. One of them was Councilmember Kshama Sawant of the Socialist Alternative party, who declared her come-from-behind re-election victory in front of a giant red sign that declared, “Tax Amazon.” Which the newly Amazon-unfriendly council almost certainly will do.Amazon employs 54,000 people in Seattle and owns or occupies 47 buildings there. That’s made the city seem like the biggest company town in the U.S., and has probably blinded Amazon’s leaders to the angst and tumult they’ve unleashed in a place that’s become both more prosperous and less livable.Sawant, who managed less than 40% of the vote in the August primary, went so far as to call Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and chief executive, “our enemy,” and described her victory as a win for working people against the world’s richest man.“Amazon overplayed their hand,” said Egan Orion, the candidate who lost to Sawant. “I wasn’t able to make my closing arguments. There was so much noise.”Once Amazon donated in such a big way, the race became nationalized. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the presidential candidates vying for the hearts of the Democratic Party’s left flank, chimed in via Twitter to trash the Amazon contributions.Here’s what Warren had to say:Here’s Sanders:Another winner, Tammy Morales, favors a bevy of local tax options to raise money for homeless services, housing and other needs. Her list includes revisiting an employee head tax similar to one Amazon successfully fought in 2018, plus a local estate tax and a tax on high salaries dubbed an “excess compensation tax.”Amazon has been trying to fine-tune its relationship with Seattle for years, and concern about relations with the City Council was among the reasons it announced in 2017 that it was looking for a second headquarters location — another endeavor that showcased the company’s limited political skills.That contest blew up in New York City when politicians and others protested the size of an Amazon enticement package — up to $3 billion in tax breaks and other incentives.In Seattle, Amazon had mostly maintained a quiet political presence until May 2018, when the City Council passed the Amazon Tax on larger companies, a head tax of $275 per employee.Amazon promptly announced that it would stop construction on one of its new buildings if the tax were imposed.The council then hastily repealed it when polls showed it could harm the council at the next election — the contest that ended so disastrously for the company this month.Starbucks, also headquartered in Seattle, took a different approach, donating a much smaller sum to the business campaign. A Starbucks executive also sent a letter to employees urging a vote for unspecified “change” and invited the public to have a cup of coffee. This was a subtle, defter move, in part because it was hard to tell exactly what the company was saying.At this juncture, perhaps after apologizing or remaining quiet a while, Amazon has a few choices. It could face probable new taxes gamely or think along the lines of Apple, which recently announced a $2.5 billion plan to ease the housing shortages and affordability crisis in California. Or take a page from Microsoft, the tech giant across Lake Washington from Amazon, which last winter offered a well received $500 million investment in affordable housing and homelessness relief across the region.To be fair, Amazon has invested in a homeless shelter in Seattle for families, Mary’s Place, which will eventually occupy eight floors in one of the new Amazon buildings. Mary’s Place does great work. But that answer to the enormous problem of homelessness and housing affordability now seems a trifle. The overall contribution to challenges facing the city is too small to those who believe Amazon needs to step up and invest in ways commensurate with its size and impact.To contact the author of this story: Joni Balter at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joni Balter is a longtime Seattle columnist and writer who contributes to local NPR and PBS affiliates.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.